1787] Foreign Relations 229 away private property; but the British authorities refused to hand over the posts in the northwest, and declined to make compensation for slaves taken away at the time of the evacuation of Charleston and New York, - and no compensation has ever been made. On the other hand, Great Britain had ground for serious complaint against the United States: the treaty required that no legal obstacles should be placed in the way of the collection of debts contracted before the war; but the states refused to abolish existing obstacles and placed new ones in the way of the collection of debts by British creditors. Congress had no coercive power: it could only Weakness expostulate with the members of the Confederation and of Congress. excuse their actions to the British government as well as it could. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to condemn the action of the British authorities in retaining the posts and the profitable fur trade which centered in them. cal Period, 208-213; Winsor's With Spain also there were several disputes: that power Relations refused to recognize the thirty-first parallel as the southern with Spain, 1783-89. boundary of the United States between the Mississippi and Fiske's Criti the Appalachicola rivers, and she maintained that "the Floridas" ceded to her by Great Britain in 1783 were the Floridas as they had been governed by British officials America, (p. 117). The Spanish government was also anxious to do VII, 222-223. away with the right of the Americans to the free navigation of the Mississippi, which now flowed for two hundred miles through Spanish territory (p. 209); but this matter did not interest any large body of the people on the Atlantic seaboard. On the other hand, there were many persons who desired commercial intercourse with Spain and with the Spanish colonies. This privilege the Spaniards were willing to grant on condition of the abandonment of the free navigation of the Mississippi. Congress therefore authorized Jay, who represented the nation in foreign affairs, to negotiate a treaty on this basis. Even Washington attached slight importance to the matter; Jefferson, however, wrote from Paris that such a policy would bring about the separation of the Eastern and the Western states. He was right, for the and "stay protests from Kentucky and Tennessee became so strong that the project was abandoned. Foreign relations were in this condition when the organization of the government under the Constitution gave the United States power to make its treaties respected at home and to hamper foreign commerce by levying discriminating duties. Depreciated 176. Financial Problems, 1783-86. Within two years paper money after the close of the conflict, the pressure of poverty was felt throughout the country as it had not been during the Fiske's Criti progress of the war itself: the good gold and silver pieces cal Period, laws." 162-176. Trevett vs. left the country to pay for foreign commodities, and only old, worn, and clipped pieces remained; business confidence disappeared, and in almost every state the debtor class clamored for some form of repudiation of their debts. They especially demanded the emission of paper money resting on little or no foundation save the credit of the state governments. A currency of this description was known to depreciate rapidly, and one advocate of such a plan proposed to embody a scale of depreciation in the act authorizing the printing of the bills, - a dollar to be worth four shillings on January 1, three shillings on April 1, and two shillings on July 1. In at least one state all persons were required to accept paper money issued by the state under pain of losing the right to vote and a fine of one hundred pounds. Those who owed money also demanded the enactment of laws to delay the collection of debts- stay laws, as they were termed — and "tender laws," which permitted a debtor to offer goods, at certain rates, in discharge of his debts. Most of the states, except New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Virginia, yielded to the popular clamor and issued large quantities of paper money. The most famous legal decision of the Confederation period arose in Rhode Island out of the refusal of a butcher named Weeden to part with his meat in exchange for paper money offered in payment by a would-be purchaser. The latter, whose name was Trevett, sued Weeden, and the case was tried, without a jury, by judges who were annually 1787] The Critical Period 231 appointed by the legislature. They showed a courage worthy of the dauntless Stephen Hopkins: although entirely dependent on the legislature which had passed this act, they declared the law unconstitutional, and hence null and void. This case was one of the earliest instances in American legal history of the judicial annulment of a law on the ground of its unconstitutionality. Its importance has drawn marked attention to the financial misdoings of the Rhode Islanders; but the standard of honesty throughout the thirteen states was, at the moment, very low. Rebellion. 177-186; Winsor's America, VII, 227-231. 177. The Critical Period, 1786, 1787. — The lack of Shays's business confidence, which was mentioned in the last para- Fiske's Critigraph, was due in great part to a growing determination cal Period, among the people to prevent by force the collection of debts by process of law. This led to armed conflicts in North Carolina and Massachusetts. In the latter state the rebels, led by Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck, prevented the judges from holding court in three corners of the state; at one time it seemed as if the state government might be overwhelmed. The movement was put down, but the rebels, fleeing to other states, everywhere found shelter. The crisis was so threatening that Congress began to make preparations to raise an army, -on account of an Indian war, so it was said, but really to intervene in case the insurrection assumed formidable proportions. In addition to these troubles within many of the states, relations between them were by no means harmonious. One of the greatest obstacles to harmony was the arrangement whereby each state managed its own commercial affairs. Many states sought to protect the interests of their own citizens, entirely regardless of the interests of other states, and, indeed, sometimes at the cost of their neighbors. For instance, New York endeavored to protect her farmers against the competition of the agriculturalists of New Jersey; and when Massachusetts proposed to pass legislation to protect her shipowners and merchants against British competition, other New England states at once took Selfish policy of the states. Fiske's Critical Period, 144-154. Attempt to amend the Articles, 1780-87. Fiske's Critical Period, 142, 218. American History Proposals for a constitutional convention. Fiske's Critical Period, 214-222. measures to thwart her to their own advantage. By the end of 1786, it was evident that unless something were done radically to amend the Articles of Confederation, civil war would surely break out. 178. Attempts to amend the Articles. - Before all the states had ratified the Articles of Confederation, their weakness had been recognized, and an attempt had been made to amend them. The first proposition (1781) was to give Congress the power to increase the revenues of the general government by laying duties on imports to the extent of five per cent ad valorem. In the course of a year, twelve states assented to the proposition; but Rhode Island refused. As the consent of all the states was necessary to an amendment (p. 217), the proposition failed of adoption. Two years later (1783), Congress suggested that it should be given power to levy duties on imports, partly specific and partly ad valorem, the duties to be collected by state officials appointed by Congress. Again twelve states assented to the proposed change, but this time New York declined to consent, and this proposition also fell through. In fact, all attempts to amend the Articles failed, and Congress was not able to pay even the everyday expenses of the government. The country was rapidly drifting toward civil strife, when a convention met at Philadelphia (May, 1787) to propose a series of changes in the fundamental law of the Confederation. The meeting of this convention was the result of the labors of a few men, notably of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and they were greatly aided by disputes which had arisen over the commercial relations of the states bordering on Chesapeake Bay. 179. Genesis of the Federal Convention. - Constitutional conventions are now part of the ordinary machinery of American government; before 1787 they were hardly known. The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 had been framed by a convention composed of delegates especially elected for that purpose, but all the other state constitutions of the Revolutionary period had been the work of legislative bodies 1785] Genesis of the Federal Convention 233 (p. 177), although some of them had borne the designation of conventions. The Articles of Confederation had been drafted by the Continental Congress and ratified by the state legislatures (p. 217). Thomas Paine, in Common Sense (p. 179), had suggested that "a continental conference be held . . . to frame a continental charter," and in a later pamphlet, entitled Public Good, he had advocated a revision. of the Articles of Confederation; and Massachusetts, in 1785, had directed her delegates in Congress to propose a general revision of the Articles. Nothing had come of these suggestions, and the Federal Convention was due to entirely different causes. 1785. The southern boundary of Maryland was the southern Alexandria bank of the Potomac River (p. 61), but practically all the Convention, commerce of that river had its origin in Virginia. On the other hand, the “ capes of the Chesapeake" were both in Virginia, but a very large proportion of the shipping which passed in or out of the bay was bound to Maryland, especially to Baltimore, the most thriving commercial town south of Philadelphia. The Maryland regulations for the Potomac did not please the Virginians, nor did the Marylanders at all relish the payments which Virginia assessed on all vessels passing the "capes." It happened also that the tariff policies of the two states were very dissimilar. In short, there were constant disputes about these matters. Several times attempts had been made to adjust these differences, but without success. In 1785 commissioners from Virginia and Maryland met at Alexandria and adjourned their conferences to Washington's mansion of Mount Vernon near by. The discussions of the commissioners, among whom were James Madison and George Mason, soon extended to the desirability of similar tariffs and commercial regulations for all the states interested in the navigation of Chesapeake Bay and connecting waters. In their report, they suggested the appointment of a joint commission every second year to consider these topics. The Maryland Assembly at once fell |